Posts by Ralph Burton

According to the History Channel online schedule, "Hidden History:
Psychic
Espionage" will air at 8pm Eastern time on Thursday, 27 September. The
program includes interviews with Hal Puthoff, Skip Atwater, Joe
McMoneagle,
and myself. Lyn Buchanan and Dale Graff, among others, also
contributed in
various ways. I've had an advanced look at the program, and it's well
worth watching -- though not quite as good as I'd hoped (it gets a
little
"woo-woo" in places). Still, I learned a few things I didn't know, and
hopefully y'all will, too!

Enjoy,
Paul

40

More Remote Viewing

by Decidedly_Unsure in

jw
friends

more on remote viewers.

i'm not sure if it's decent protocol to bring it up under a new heading .

1. it's 8 pages deep already.

Ralph Burton

rem,

>You are insulting my intelligence and the intelligence of all of the participants of this board.

How could I insult your intelligence. You're obviously smarter
than Physicists and the Intelligence analysts that the CIA, DIA, NSA
had access too. ;-)

>This statement is false. A skeptic believes or disbelieves upon the >basis of evidence.

I could rip into that statement but I won't.
What you want to is someone to describe a target accurately
enough for you to believe that Remote Viewing is real.

My problem is that if it's close you'll say it was a good guess.
If it's a miss, you'll say it doesn't work.
I get the impression that you are looking for one
session to prove it works.
That's not realistic.
When I was showing people in North Carolina RV, my first
target wasn't even close... Second target, had good info intermixed
with bad info. At this point, no one believe it.
Third target was a direct hit.

Pay attention:
When doing a target, many times the drawing(s)
in the session are very important.

> Where there is no evidence there is no belief. Show us the evidence and we will believe – there is no conspiracy against RV here.

I've given you plenty to go look at... you haven't
even read the basic history. It's six bucks, if you
can afford it maybe you should do a little reading.
Remote Viewers - Jim Schabel

>I would like to ask you if there would be any way to disprove RV in your view?

I'm not the one asking if RV is real.
You are.

>A nonbeliever’s position is falsifiable. If there is evidence of RV, then the nonbeliever’s position is false. What are your criteria?

I told you I originally was skeptical about RV.
Unlike you, I did research it.

>Because it seems to me that there would be no way to convince you that the phenomenon doesn’t work – no matter what contrary evidence there is or will be.

Why is this such an important point with you? Whether I believe
RV works or doesn't work makes no difference.

> The fact is that all of the replicated evidence so far is negative – there is no positive evidence that has been replicated in the academic field.

Really? How would you know? You must be up on all the studies
the Universities are doing?

Explain to the list what Dean Radin was studying at the University
of Nevada?

>I can’t tell whether you are being intentionally dishonest or if you are just ignorant of the facts. Utts, the statistician who reviewed the study, was involved in the RV experiments and is a known advocate of psi claims. It is interesting that a person involved in the experiments was used to review the process! This is hardly an impartial source.

Thanks for the insult.
Utts was assigned by the government to study the RV sessions.
She wasn't a member of the RV unit. I'd like know how and where she
was involved in psi before doing the RV study.
Since you know, please inform the list. This is the first I've
heard of it.

>The fact is that there are no published, replicated studies showing RV ability.

Try Stanford Research Institute - Russell Targ and Hal Putoff

> No experiments have shown experienced RV’ers to be significantly more accurate than chance would allow.

Really? That's quite a claim.
What studies are you quoting from, please list them.

> Your books, links, radio shows, etc. provide no evidence – only anecdotes.

Not true.

> We have done our homework.

If you have, then you should have no problem to specific
questions about Remote Viewing.

>The record stands for itself. If someone believes that that was a hit then his or her standard of evidence is pitifully low!

Explain to me what the term "hit" means.

> Some education in critical thinking skills would be recommended for anyone who falls for this stunt.

Define the educational approach to critical thinking.

>Here is a falsifiable theory of RV that I just made up myself: If the RV phenomenon is true, you would expect to see many people making similar guesses – not a whole bunch of people making extremely different guesses and one person getting lucky.

I actually agree with you here.

> If they are really seeing something then there should be consistency across viewers.

I mostly agree with this statement too.
For example at a crime scene, If 3 people see
a crime they all may report it slightly differently.

> So far in the published studies this has not been shown and this has also been observed in our informal tests here.

Tests? You call these tests?
You can't be serious. You are saying your test proves if
RV works.

No one one was trained in RV who went after the target.
No one here was trained to analyze a RV session.

What you all did was guess. Guessing is fun, RV takes
time and effort.

BTW, What studies are you quoting from?

>From what I’ve seen so far, not many of us are saying that this claim is impossible – only extremely unlikely. The RV advocates are not allowing for any room that their perception may be wrong.

Not true.
There are going to be incorrect perceptions.
There are going to be complete misses on targets.
There are going to be direct hits on targets too.
I had a target that I said was the space shuttle, and it was.
That session, if you had watched it and seen it done would
probably convince you. But on the other hand, me telling
you about it, won't.

I've proven to many people like you RV is real.
I could invite them to this list.
But you wouldn't believe them.

> Why not let the evidence fall where it may? But please, let’s have adequate standards of evidence. If we are to take the wrong guess mentioned earlier as a hit, then that person is willing to believe whatever will bolster his preconceived notions and is not looking objectively at facts.

Why don't you explain to everyone on this list the
protocols of a Remote Viewing session.
List the type of RV you are explaining and how it works.
Since you made the claim you've done your homework...
this should be easy for you.

>This is false. The record is there for everyone to see. You are the one with the perception that RV is a fact. I’m skeptical, but if there really is something to it, I’m open to that. But I require evidence before I believe.

I did too... otherwise it's a bunch of stories...

> So far, all we’ve heard are over hyped claims in private studies, wild anecdotes, and rationalized misses, but no real evidence of any hits.

I think it was on ABC, "Put to the Test" with Joe McMoneagle.
He's one of the best, they do a live a RV session on the show.

>Then show it! Stop the bluster and provide some evidence. That is all we are asking for.

If you are truly interested in how RV works, you can
go to the www.HRVG.org site and look at the sessions.
You might get a better understanding how
perceptions come through.

Well folks, I need to get back to the lists I belong too.

Take Care,

Ralph

[email protected]

40

More Remote Viewing

by Decidedly_Unsure in

jw
friends

more on remote viewers.

i'm not sure if it's decent protocol to bring it up under a new heading .

1. it's 8 pages deep already.

Ralph Burton

Chuck,

>I don't for a moment suggest that any of these people are lying. I >am sure that they are completley convinced of this ability, and are >very sincere. But I do think that once you really buy into ANY idea,
>it becomes very hard to consider it objectively.

The same logic is true in the opposite situation. If you believe so
strongly that this is impossible, even if you are shown the
evidence you wouldn't believe it. You might say something
like "good guess". Because it might push hard on your personal
beliefs. Then you might have to question how something like
this is possible and what does it mean...

>As far as the quotes and evidence being offered in support of this ability, I have no idea what the source of these are.

Then you haven't done your homework.
I have.
I listed books, links, videos, radio shows.
I've met many of the military RVers.
I have seen RV done in controlled situations.
I have participated in double blind studies.
I quoted the statician who did the study that closed down
the army unit who said there was more to it than guessing.
Go do some research if you *really* interested in the subject.

> My contention is this; the claim of remote viewing seems to be a >fairly easy one to test, at least on the surface. Someone picks a >target, the remote person draws or otherwise accurately describes >it, and then you see how they did. Sounds easy to verify one way or >the other.

It depends, I think the picture of the car was a good example
of how people would disagree how simple it is the verify.
Because I believe both sides made valid arguments.

The skeptical side said, he didn't hit the target, he was
way off.

The more intelligent side (ha,ha,ha,) said, wait, look
at the perceptions that came through... he didn't quite
miss the target like everyone else on the list. He hit key
aspects of the target.

The skeptical side said, but he didn't hit it perfectly.
Look he missed all these main points of the target and
said things that weren't in the target.

The more intelligent side said, let me
explain to you how psychic perceptions come through.
I've studied this, you haven't.

The skeptical side said, we don't want to hear it. We know
that this is impossible, so the only way you could prove it
to us, is to have it work the way we think it should work.
We don't think it should work, so it won't.

>So, here is what I have done. I have selected a target quite nearby to me. The target can be seen at a distance and easily identified for what it is at a very quick glance from any angle. Someone describing it would be able to do so with very few words. I am hoping that ONE person who purports RV ability will view this target and describe it for those of us who are interested, and then I will post a photo of the target for comparison.

You basically gave too much information.
Because you know what the target is, it's not a double blind
session. I could just read your mind. ;-)
Damn, what's going on in there!

I could contact a member of your family, etc., where you work.

How about if I just guess.

>The reason I say one person should be clear from following the >original thread. Multiple people made attempts, one of them reported >a single correct facet of the target within other incorrect >information, and suddenly all of the incorrect attempts are no >longer mentioned

I'll mention it. Most of you are lousy guessers.

> while the closer guess is massaged and retrofitted to seem more accurate after the target was disclosed.

No one massaged and retrofitted anything.

Tried to explain to you how perceptions come through and
you aren't getting it because it doesn't fit your perception
of how it should work.

> This is not at all different than what a fortune teller or any kind of cold reader does. And, it is human nature to play along.

Again, you missed the point. There's a very big difference here.

1. A fortune teller can ask yes and no questions.
Attempts to read your future... generally using tarot, crystal
ball, etc.

RVers play poker and use bowling balls.

2. A cold reader reads a person.
They can read the expressions, body language and
subtle emotions in the voice,
that can passed from the person across from them.
They can ask yes and no questions.

A Remote Viewer can work a target with no information about
the target up front. A Remote Viewer can work a target with
front loading, as long as the front loading is minimal.
For example, the target is a location, describe the location.
The target is a person, describe the person.

That ends todays, Remote Vewing lesson.

Ralph

161

Remote Viewing

by funkyderek in

jw
friends

following on from the anybody else had visions?

thread below ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=10144&site=3).

i have offered a prize of 50 american dollars or the equivalent in your currency of choice for whoever can guess (or envision or whatever) the contents of a picture i have chosen.. i will be emailing the picture, in password zip format to [email protected] along with unambiguous details of what qualifies as a correct guess.

Ralph Burton

Julien,

Good guesses?

Try reading the quotes without the spin of the article and
see how they read.

Quote from your first link:
"To justify the cost, advocates within the government cite apparent successes like the time Agent 518 lay down on a cot, cleansed his mind and proceeded to tell CIA agents precisely how a KGB operative in South Africa was transmitting information through a personal calculator. Psychics later interviewed by CIA evaluators said the program worked really well--as long as it was run by officials "who accepted the phenomenon." "

Wait what did that say? CIA evaluators said the program
worked really well? What.... I thought they were just guessing!

" At first, programsupporters say, the military used only the highest quality psychics. Joe McMoneagle, an army intelligence officer, discovered that the CIA would pay him to sit in a room and use his powers to draw pictures of prospective Soviet submarines. He impressed the military brass by diagramming a key communist sub and predicting (within a month) when it would emerge from its secret hiding place."

Wow, what a great guess!
And he can draw too and come up with the time the sub would emerge.
And it did.
What a good guesser.

In 1984, McMoneagle left the army to work as a civilian psychic consultant and was awarded the Legion of Merit for "providing information on 150 targets that was unavailable from other sources.""

Gee, they give the Legion of Merit award to people the
are good guessers. Especially since he guessed right at
least 150 times. Yup... that's some really good guessing.

Quote from your second link:
"A particualrly talented viewer accurately drew windmills when the sender was at a windmill farm at Altamont Pass in California and "

Dang, it could have been anything and he not only
guessed it he drew it correctly.

"later a footbridge across a marsh when the sender went to a San Francisco bay area wildlife refuge."

Another great guess and drawing...!!

Quote from your third link:
"At least a few powerful Senators on the Appropriations Committee will miss them. Senators Daniel Inouye and Robert Byrd, intrigued by stories of psychic successes, pushed hard during many years to keep Star Gate going."

Sure because they were really good guessers. Gee even
Jimmy Carter thought they were good too. Who was the CIA
director back then...mmmm.... George Bush. Well he must
of thought they were good guessers too since the CIA was paying
for the original research at SRI at the time the army unit was created. Makes you wonder if the CIA has a unit doesn't it?
I mean a unit of good guessers.

"DIA credited psychics with creating accurate pictures of Soviet submarine construction hidden from U.S. spy satellites, and a 1993 Pentagon report said psychics had correctly drawn 20 tunnels being built in North Korea near the demilitarized zone."

What the Pentagon said the psychics had "correctly drawn 20 tunnels"
.... hey are you guys reading this...?

"Sometimes it seems that these people are right on," says Jessica Utts, a statistician at the University of California at Davis who contributed to the CIA study. "But nobody knows when those times come."

Well sometimes they guessed right on with practice targets
she was able to evaluate. Since she didn't have clearance
to view operational targets. Hyman and Utts did the study
neither had access to 20 years of data,
they had access to 1 years practice targets.
Today Utts says that data delivered was way beyond chance.
That there was something there...

I don't close the door on anything," Hyman told Newsweek, "but these are nice tall stories that can't be evaluated."

Gee, they can't be evaluated? Why not? Didn't he have
access to all the records? Why not? So just what was
evaluated?

I could guess what happened to the unit.... I could guess
the reason why there's a spin on it... I mean what if it
did work and everybody started doing it.

What would be secret?

Ralph

161

Remote Viewing

by funkyderek in

jw
friends

following on from the anybody else had visions?

thread below ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=10144&site=3).

i have offered a prize of 50 american dollars or the equivalent in your currency of choice for whoever can guess (or envision or whatever) the contents of a picture i have chosen.. i will be emailing the picture, in password zip format to [email protected] along with unambiguous details of what qualifies as a correct guess.

Ralph Burton

Derek,

Imagine being in a dark room. You have a pen light.
And you flash it on for a second and you get a glimpse
of what's in the room. Then you point it somewhere else
and get another glimpse. So now you have a bunch of glimpses.
So you try to put them together and describe them as best as possible.
That's what Remote Viewing is like.

For me, a hit occurs when the glimpse is correct.

A session will contain hits and misses.

Taking the impressions of your picture:

We can agree that there was a car. That would be a hit.
We can agree there was a guy. That would be a hit.
Was the guy standing? If so, then that was good impression too.
I see those as hits.

For me a miss whould be a incorrect perception.
The field would be a miss.

I hope this helps explain hits and misses.

Ralph

161

Remote Viewing

by funkyderek in

jw
friends

following on from the anybody else had visions?

thread below ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=10144&site=3).

i have offered a prize of 50 american dollars or the equivalent in your currency of choice for whoever can guess (or envision or whatever) the contents of a picture i have chosen.. i will be emailing the picture, in password zip format to [email protected] along with unambiguous details of what qualifies as a correct guess.

Ralph Burton

Chuck,

I'd be willing to be RV some targets you pick out.
Email me and we can discuss it.

Ralph

[email protected]

161

Remote Viewing

by funkyderek in

jw
friends

following on from the anybody else had visions?

thread below ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=10144&site=3).

i have offered a prize of 50 american dollars or the equivalent in your currency of choice for whoever can guess (or envision or whatever) the contents of a picture i have chosen.. i will be emailing the picture, in password zip format to [email protected] along with unambiguous details of what qualifies as a correct guess.

Ralph Burton

CIA PSYCHICS - Remote Viewing Video
This is one of shows I saw on A & E channel.
It's available for 14.95 at: AandE.com
Just visit the store, do a search on "CIA" or
Item Number: AAE-12531

Description of Video:

In the depths of the Cold War, when no development went unanswered and any "gap" was a crisis, America learned that the USSR had a program in psychic research. Inevitably, the government responded with a paranormal project of its own, spending $20 million on "remote viewing" from 1976 to 1995!

In CIA PSYCHICS, three men who worked as psychic operatives tell stories of supernatural spying. Chief Warrant Officer Joseph McMoneagle sensed the location of General Dozier, then held hostage by the Red Brigade in Italy. Master Sergeant Melvin Riley drew pictures of the top secret B-2 bomber long before its existence was made public. And Captain Paul Smith sensed a tragic loss of life at sea hours before the submarine USS Stark went down in foreign waters. Despite apparent successes like these, the "remote viewing" program was cancelled in 1995. Did these men really use supernatural powers to discover military secrets and predict disasters, or can their findings be explained in other ways? CIA PSYCHICS examines all the evidence and asks you to decide.

Here's a list places where RV has been discussed in the media:

http://www.lfr.org/csl/media/publicity.shtml

Here is the research and commentary on the study that helped
to close the FT Meade unit. They studied only non-classified
material from the last year of the unit.

I quote Professor Jessica Utts, Division of Statistics
University of California, Davis

"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud."

http://www.lfr.org/csl/media/ciaairreport.shtml

Cya,
Ralph

P.S. Really, this is part of me fading off the list... just
had to post a little more... ;-)

161

Remote Viewing

by funkyderek in

jw
friends

following on from the anybody else had visions?

thread below ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=10144&site=3).

i have offered a prize of 50 american dollars or the equivalent in your currency of choice for whoever can guess (or envision or whatever) the contents of a picture i have chosen.. i will be emailing the picture, in password zip format to [email protected] along with unambiguous details of what qualifies as a correct guess.

Ralph Burton

Julien:
> Why is this jargon needed?
Just like there is a cyberlanguage or computer geek speak.
So too, RVers have
developed terminology to help explains types of perceptions,
impressions and analysis. The process of pulling out perceptions
and reporting the information can be complicated, depending on the
session.

I was trained by P>S>I - Lyn Buchanan:
http://www.crviewer.com/crviewer/index.html

Here's a site that explains the terminology and contains the
manual they used at Fort Meade and the variation I use taught
by P>S>I:

http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/core2.cfm

Cynicus:

The amazing Randi is really amazing... go check out these
two sites. There's more. Do a search and see.

http://survivalscience.50megs.com/torandi.htm
http://www.geocities.com/randiexpert2001/

Glenn - Military Remote Viewer:
I am happily surprised to see Glenn enter the discusson.
He heads the Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild.
I had the pleasure of briefly meeting Glenn and other
Hawaii RVers at the International Remote Viewers Association
conference. Though I haven't trained in the method Glenn teaches,
I am impressed by the results. I believe his site offers
training for a reasonable fee. It also has a BBS, newsletter,
examples posted of HRV sessions. Glenn has a lot more experience than I do at RV... website: www.hrvg.org

Meanwhile I hope to meet Dave from this list and show him some
sessions. So far I haven't heard from him.

I'm planning on fading off the list soon because I'm
pretty busy. Though I'm not a Jehovah's witness...
(but do have some friends who are), I found everyone
to be quiet friendly here while discussing RV.

I can be reached at my email address if you have
any other questions.

[email protected]

Cya, See ya, see you, ;-)

- Ralph

161

Remote Viewing

by funkyderek in

jw
friends

following on from the anybody else had visions?

thread below ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=10144&site=3).

i have offered a prize of 50 american dollars or the equivalent in your currency of choice for whoever can guess (or envision or whatever) the contents of a picture i have chosen.. i will be emailing the picture, in password zip format to [email protected] along with unambiguous details of what qualifies as a correct guess.

Ralph Burton

Chuck,

The way targets were originally assigned were by using map
coordinates.
Read Remote Viewers - Jim Schnabel

They then found coordinates didn't matter.
The target is assigned by "Intent" of tasker.

Or the target is the tasker.

I was trained to use date and viewer number to assign
my targets.

I use that number as my queue for the target. But I don't
need it to hit the target.

Then I work the session... write down what comes through.

Chuck said:
>If someone tosses out a number of ideas and concepts, letting only >those which match count as "hits" while dismissing the misses is not >going to give a very valid result in any test.

When we score a session we take misses into account.
I really don't want to get into how to score a session here
either. Because what you want to know is if this is real
or B.S.

www.irva.org - has papers written by researchers on the
subject of RV.

Cya,
Ralph